Juvenile injustice: The high court should make its ruling that abolished mandatory life sentences for juveniles retroactive

January 2, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court justices moved the nation’s justice system forward in 2012 by ruling that mandatory life sentences for juveniles violated the Constitution’s 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That decision, however, did not determine whether the prohibition on such sentences should apply retroactively to more than 2,000 juvenile lifers nationwide, including nearly 350 in Michigan.

The high court’s omission has created confusion around the country. It has enabled states such as Michigan to continue to enforce unjust and irrational laws.

Michigan’s juvenile lifer law defied science, public opinion, and common sense. Children don’t have the same legal rights and responsibilities as adults, because they lack the maturity and judgment to handle them. Nor should courts hold them equally culpable.

Read More

Year after Obama-ordered prison release, ex-drug dealer finds career

By Annie Sweeney

January 1, 2015

One year ago, Reynolds Wintersmith had just finished his morning workout and was preparing to take his cool-down lap in the prison yard when — over the music playing in his MP3 player — he faintly heard his name over the loudspeaker.

Sentenced to life in federal prison in 1994 for drug-dealing when he was a teenager, Wintersmith spent much of his days working on bettering himself, buoyed by the hope he’d someday be freed.

After hearing his name paged, Wintersmith made his way to the warden’s office and waited. A phone call for him was coming, staff told him. Minutes later he was speaking with his attorney, who told him President Barack Obama had commuted his sentence: “He did it,” Wintersmith heard on the other end of the phone. “He signed your paperwork. You are coming home.”

Read More 

Repeal of mandatory life sentences for minors should be retroactive

December 19, 2014

The Supreme Court made the right call two years ago when it found unconstitutional state laws mandating a life sentence without parole for minors convicted of grievous crimes. But in that decision, Miller vs. Alabama, the court left unresolved a crucial detail: Did the decision apply only to future cases, or did it extend to minors already serving life sentences? The court now has a chance toanswer that question and to complete this important act of justice and decency by making the ruling retroactive.

The current case involves George Toca of Louisiana, who had just turned 17 in 1984 when, police said, he accidentally shot and killed an accomplice during a robbery. Toca maintains that someone else killed his friend (the Innocence Project has taken on the case), but that’s not the key issue in the appeal. After 30 years behind bars, Toca argues that he’s a different person than the child who was imprisoned in 1985 and that the Miller ruling means he should be able to offer mitigating evidence at a new sentencing hearing. Unsurprisingly, the state of Louisiana disagrees.

Read More

James Bell and Bart Lubow encourage broad view of issues impacting sentencing

We were honored to be joined this year by keynote speakers James Bell, founder, executive director & board president of the W. Haywood Burns Institute, and Bart Lubow, consultant to the Annie E. Casey Foundation and former director of their Juvenile Justice Strategy Group, who provided insights and reflections about how we got to the point of imposing extreme sentences upon children, and disproportionately on children of color.

Lubow noted in his comments during the opening plenary that life without parole is the most egregious example of the ways that our justice system fails the “my child” test. The “my child” test calls upon system leaders and policymakers to ask themselves whether they would want our current policies to apply to their own children if they came into conflict with the law. Where our policies and practices fail this test, there is a clear need for reform.

Lubow drew from his decades of experience with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, also known as JDAI, which focuses on diverting children from detention and improving outcomes for our most vulnerable youth.

Bell was the keynote speaker for the session on the role and history of race in our juvenile sentencing practices. His remarks were consistent with Lubow’s in that he noted that there are no easy answers to dealing with the long-term problem of disparate prosecution and sentencing of children.

Bell said life without parole for children is the most extreme example of the way that our country has implemented polices that have negated childhood for black youth, insisted on harsh punishment, and focused on retribution rather than rehabilitation. As a result, structural racism is one of the challenges that we must face head on in our effort to bring meaningful and lasting reforms.

Lubow encouraged people who seek change to prepare to work for the long haul. Change will come, he said, but stamina is necessary because these complicated and entrenched issues won’t be resolved quickly but will require sustained, dedicated work.

A Shooter, His Victim and Race

By Nicholas Kristof

December 13, 2014

TAMPA, Fla. — IAN MANUEL is a black man who has spent most of his life in prison. Yet he still has a most unusual advocate calling for his release: a white woman whom he met when he shot her in the face.

Manuel fired the bullet when he was barely 13, and he fit all too neatly into racial stereotypes, especially that of the black predator who had to be locked away forever. One of the greatest racial disparities in America is in the justice system, and fear of young black criminals like Manuel helped lead to mass incarceration policies that resulted in a sixfold increase in the number of Americans in prison after 1970. Yet, as his one-time victim points out (speaking with a reconstructed jaw), it’s complicated.

Read More

Supreme Court will hear case involving life sentences without parole for juveniles

By Robert Barnes

December 12, 2014

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide whether hundreds of juvenile offenders sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole deserve a chance to be resentenced.

The court announced it will consider the case of a Louisiana man who said the court’s 2012 decision banning mandatory life sentences for juveniles must be applied retroactively.

The 5-to-4 ruling in Miller v. Alabama said that state laws mandating life in prison without the possibility of parole for those younger than 18 offend the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. That decision was part of a trend at the court of treating even the worst juvenile offenders differently from adults.

“Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the 2012 decision. “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

Read More

Convening culminates five years of successful work

Dear Friends,
We are thrilled to share this final issue of our newsletter in 2014, which focuses on our National Convening and provides some updates on recent activity in the courts and legislatures. The Convening, which was held last month, brought together more than 100 advocates, litigators, formerly incarcerated youth, family members both of people serving life without parole for crimes committed as youth and those who died as a result of violence, policymakers, our national partners, and others under one roof to strategize and strengthen our movement.
The Convening marked the culmination of our fifth year as an organization, leading steady progress in the movement to end life-in-prison sentences for our children. Together, we celebrated our successes and reflected on all we have learned. We shared best practices, established new alliances, met with federal policymakers, and strategized about innovative approaches to reform as we move forward.
Significantly, just weeks after our gathering, on December 12th, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Toca v. Lousiana, which will directly address the question of whether Miller v.Alabama–the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that banned mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children–should apply retroactively. In the coming months, we will be working closely with partners across the nation to convince the Court that every individual automatically sentenced to life without parole as a child should receive a second chance, regardless of the date or location of his or her conviction.
Ultimately, of course, we want to ensure that all those sentenced to die in prison as children–whether through mandatory sentences or not–are given regular, meaningful chances to demonstrate whether they deserve release. Our goal is to continue to move our country away from these extreme sentencing practices that disproportionately impact poor children and children of color to a system that is rooted in fairness and focused on children’s capacity to grow and change. There is more work ahead to reach this goal, and momentum is on our side. Thank you for your support this year and we look forward to partnering with you in 2015!

Onward!

jkl signature  (2)

Jody Kent Lavy

Letters to a Lifer tells of change that came from knowing a person serving JLWOP

In Letters to a Lifer, Cindy Sanford of Pennsylvania writes about how she went from “tough on crime” to believing that children–even those convicted of serious crimes–can change and be rehabilitated.

Sanford, who describes herself as politically conservative, has been around law enforcement her entire life. Her grandfather was a New York City police officer and her husband recently retired after a career in law enforcement. She believed in the adage “if you do the crime, you do the time.”

That changed when Cindy, a registered nurse who also owned an art gallery, got to know a young man serving life without parole for a crime committed as a teen. Their first interaction came when someone brought in some of the young man’s artwork. The paintings on leaves were unlike anything Cindy had seen before–and they sold out quickly. Cindy ultimately reached out to him for more artwork and, over time, developed a relationship. After a long correspondence and several visits with him, Cindy and her husband, Keith, came to love Ken and now consider him another son. He considers them his parents and uses their last name, calling himself Ken Sanford.

Letters to a Lifer is a collaboration between Cindy and Ken. Cindy tells of her personal growth around transformation and Ken writes about his maturation in prison.

Read more about the book

Watch a video about the book

U.S. Supreme Court allows Illinois ruling that held Miller retroactive to stand

The U.S. Supreme Court on December 1 let stand the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Davis, which found that Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively. This means that approximately 80 people given mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole as children in Illinois will be immediately eligible for resentencing.

The state’s highest court found that a child cannot be sentenced to life without parole unless the sentencing includes an established process for considering the child’s age and other characteristics of youthfulness, such as mental development. The court ruled that Miller applies to everyone serving the sentence, regardless of when their sentence was given.

Miller found on June 25, 2012 that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to impose an automatic sentence of life without parole for a crime committed by a person younger than 18. Illinois is one of nine states whose highest courts have ruled that Miller applies retroactively to everyone serving the sentence. Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Nebraska and Wyoming are the other states. Four states – Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania — have ruled that Miller does not apply retroactively. Our hope is that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually take up the issue of retroactivity and ensure that Miller is applied to ALL those currently serving mandatory life without parole for crimes committed as children. Where a child was sentenced should not determine whether he or she will die in prison.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined the case shortly after another positive development on this issue. The United Nations Committee Against Torture recently called for the U.S. to end the practice of sentencing children to life in prison without parole, regardless of the crime. The Committee also called for opportunities for people serving life without parole for crimes committed as children to “have their cases reviewed by a court for reassessment and resentencing, to restore parole eligibility and for a possible reduction of sentence.” The United States remains the only country in the world known to sentence children to life in prison without parole. Together, we will end this deplorable practice and ensure all children are given hope of release!

Read an amicus brief filed by formerly incarcerated youth, including Xavier McElrath-Bey, who now is youth justice advocate at the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth.

South Carolina holds Miller retroactive

South Carolina has become the ninth state to determine that the Miller v. Alabama decision should be applied retroactively.

The ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court means that dozens of people who were sentenced as children to life without parole will now have an opportunity for review. The ruling applies to people whose sentences were mandatory as well as those in which a judge had discretion in giving the sentence.

In addition, state high courts in Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Texas, Illinois, Nebraska and Wyoming have ruled that Miller applies retroactively. Four states have ruled that Miller is not retroactive.

Read the ruling in Aikens, et al v. Byars
Read a news story: South Carolina’s high court orders new sentences for some juveniles convicted of homicide